Limbaugh joined by other conservatives standing up for AIG against "mob rule"
SUMMARY: In the wake of Rush Limbaugh's defense of AIG, several conservative media figures -- including Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Michelle Malkin -- have joined him in condemning criticism of the company's employee retention bonuses.
In the wake of Rush Limbaugh's defense of American International Group (AIG) on his March 16 and March 17 broadcasts, several conservative media figures -- including Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck and Fox News contributor and syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin -- have joined him in condemning criticism of the company's employee retention bonuses. In a March 18 post to his Washington Post Co. blog, Greg Sargent cited Limbaugh's and Hannity's comments in reporting that while "GOP Congressional leaders have roundly condemned AIG and its executives, as part of a strategy to position themselves as heroic defenders of the taxpayers and to paint the Obama administration as weak and ineffectual ... increasingly, leading conservative media figures are moving in a different direction: Defending AIG."
As Media Matters for America noted, on his March 17 broadcast, Rush Limbaugh -- "a great leader for conservatives" -- declared, "A lynch mob is expanding: the peasants with their pitchforks surrounding the corporate headquarters of AIG, demanding heads. Death threats are pouring in. All of this being ginned up by the Obama administration." On March 16, Limbaugh challenged a caller who opposed the bonuses. The caller said, "I do agree with [President] Obama trying to get these bonuses back from the AIG execs because, I mean, that's our money." Limbaugh replied, "Let me ask you a question. ... You have a company -- let's take AIG out of this 'cause they're so emotionally charged. Let's say that the company being bailed out is the XYZ Widget Company. ... We need them to manufacture widgets and sell widgets and so forth. So why in the world -- or how do you get to the point where you're going to bail out the company, but you don't want the employees to get paid?" Limbaugh later added: "[T]his is not just executives, but executives are employees, too. And in many of these firms, Nathan, their salaries are pretty small. They work on bonuses, via contract based on merit."
Several other conservative media figures joined Limbaugh in defense of AIG. For example:
- On the March 17 edition of his syndicated radio show, Hannity aired Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) statement that if AIG employees do not voluntarily return their bonuses, "we plan to virtually tax all of it. ... [W]e'll put in place a new law that will allow us to tax these bonuses at a very high rate." Hannity then stated: " 'Tax all of it.' In other words, Chucky is coming for you. The government is coming to get your money." Hannity later added: "Whether you like the AIG bonuses or not, think about this: They're going to make a law, and they're going to tax every single penny of it, virtually all of it. In other words, we're going to just steal their money. And they're not going to be able to do a darn thing about it, because we're the government, and if we decide we can confiscate all of their wealth, we're gonna do it."
- On the March 18 edition of his Fox News show, Beck stated that by proposing to recoup the AIG bonuses, Congress is not "trying to solve this problem" but rather trying to "channel the outrage away from their roles" and "direct it toward the faceless bonus recipients at AIG." After stating that he doesn't "like the idea of failed businesses paying bonuses," Beck stated: "But what I really, really don't like here is the idea that we are willing to give in to mob rule, and that's what this is." He added: "I mean, the only thing they haven't said is, 'Bring out the monster.' It's mob rule. They are attempting to void legally biding contracts."
- Later on the March 18 edition of his Fox News show, Beck stated that "I think what these guys are doing in Washington is whipping up mob rule" and asked Malkin, "True or false?" Malkin replied, "Absolutely. Anybody who watched the horror that was the AIG hearing this morning saw the mob rule fomenting." Malkin went on to criticize Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), and Rep. Steven Lynch (D-MA) -- who she stated was "appropriately named" -- for "going after [AIG CEO] Edward Liddy and the employees of AIG, searching for names of the executives and their families for accepting these bonuses."
Where the defacto conservative leader goes, his troops loyally fallow. I really want to see the GOPL fall in line also, the demonization of any who resist. A night of small knives, the serial.
Why in the world are these guys defending these people? It can't be that all of Rush's listeners agree with him here-- given the complete unpopularity of these bonuses.
Anti-AIG talk is the mantra of the Right just this moment-- is Rush a little psycho?
He's trying to protect his salary and any bonus. He doesn't want to see where all this outrage may lead.
Carl...
"In the wake of Rush Limbaugh's defense of AIG, several conservative media figures -- including Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Michelle Malkin -- have joined him in condemning criticism of the company's employee retention bonuses."
You asked.... why they (right-wing whores) defend this disaster?
A few reasons...
1) That is what they are paid to do!
2) They themselves are rich, so they defend their own.
3) They need to keep furthering the age old fantasy that each and every one of us can become super rich like them at some far off point in the future... and as long as they keep arguing that and defending that garbage thinking... then they can keep those that already follow them... to keep on following them and the unattainable dream of becoming super rich.
4) They are all a collection of inhuman trash, whom any of which would sell their mothers if the price was right!
Does that help...?
CAPT, I couldent have saidthat better myself. You are 100% correct about this"collection of inhuman trash".
Follow the money....to the punditocracy!
C'mon this is now chiseled into stone. The people who own these hosts are paying them big bucks to do their bidding. Is it Scaife, Koch, who? It sure isn't the sponsors calling up and saying, "Hey, we at Uggs want to protect AIG bonuses!"
Actually, he's quite a large psycho.
These guys are so out of touch. How many Joe-the-Plumber type listeners are they losing over this? The AIG bonuses are minimal in the graqnd schem,e of the bailout and the economy, but this will only hurt REPUBLICANS ifthier talking heads keep defending it. At least the domcrats have the good sense to share in EVERYONE'S outrage - outrage that comes from all quarters, excpet billionaires and RW Bobble-Heads.
I'm hoping that they keep defending the AIG bonuses for a long time because the longer they do, the more people see that they're lying, greedy, hypocrites.
The voters have spoken, the elected officials are feeling the pressure andf seem to be responding/ None of the listed conservative media figures have ever had to serve the public in elected office. And why would one want toretain a guy that drove the company to finantial ruin ? Whose business model is that ?
HANNITY: "In other words, we're going to just steal their money. And they're not going to be able to do a darn thing about it, because we're the government, and if we decide we can confiscate all of their wealth, we're gonna do it."
Their money, Sean? Perhaps you have forgotten but it's OUR money with which these bonuses were (unjustifiably) paid. No one is confiscating all of their wealth wealth, Sean...we just want last year's bonus money back because they don't deserve it. They stole OUR money. Or are you suggesting that greedy people of wealth should be insulated from ever having a bad year? At taxpayer's expense...
These guys-- if they keep it up-- are going to lose even their listeners. Nobody agrees with them on AIG.
Obama can play it beautifully now-- make it look like HE'S the crusader against financial fraud. They've boxed themselves into a corner on this.
They didn't steal your money. Your government gave it to AIG. Your
government is Bernanke, Paulson and Geithner. Not only that, they
knew about the bonuses when they gave the money to AIG. The bonuses
are written into contracts. Our government doesn't interfere with
contracts as the Supreme Court has verified a number of times.
It also probably ought not aim laws at specific individuals, lest one of
us gets targeted.
The retention bonuses are to keep the only people who know
how to unwind the positions in poisoned assets. AIG gives them money
so they won't leave. That's like when we gave Geithner a break with his
taxes so he would take the treasury job. In both cases we are presented
with the argument that the person or people involved are "uniquely
qualified". Well, we've seen how well the AIG people work and now,
after only two months we are seeing how Giethner works. I'm thinking
"uniquely qualified" is overrated.
The retention bonuses are to keep the only people who know
how to unwind the positions in poisoned assets. AIG gives them money
so they won't leave.
A number of the larger bonuses were paid to individuals who have already left AIG...so try your argument on someone else. These contracts were confected last March when AIG knew it was in bad shape. Creative accounting was utilized to create an available pool of bonus money even though the company was losing money. If taking money to which you should not be entitled is stealing then I submit that the money was stolen from the taxpayers.
BTW, 12.5% of AIG people who got the bonuses have left. They accounted for 20% of the bonus money...so, on average, they were the ones who got larger bonuses than those who stayed at AIG.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/18/aigs-biggest-retention-bo_n_176531.html
Well, don't you think those would be the people you should be mad at? How are the ones that stayed creating a problem for you? What have they done illegal?
What did your brilliant mathmeticians say was the "average" for leaving a company after a bonus is paid? (8% failure is average for foreclosures, is 13% average for employees leaving after being paid a large bonus).
I think the contracts can be fought in court. I think there is an argument to be made that such contracts are against public policy and aren't in keeping with the good of the nation.
Where's a good lawyer, like Friedbergboy, when we need him? :)
It also probably ought not aim laws at specific individuals, lest one of
us gets targeted.
Is the legislative proposal to tax all the people who received bonuses unconstitutional as a "bill of attainder"?
No.
Kind of like when the government gives someone welfare money or food stamps? Are THEY entitled to that outlay as well? DO you look at that as being "their money?" Or you you see it as YOURS being given to THEM, and want it back?
I know, what transparaney hypocrisy is at work here. Hannity is such an idiot.
Perhaps you have forgotten but it's OUR money with which these bonuses were (unjustifiably) paid.
Irony, wasn't the bonus issue mandated by the administration? It is being widely reported that is the case.
Of course, Malkin failed to mention the Republicans such as Grassley and others who expressed outrage and made outrageous statements against the AIG bonus situation. Perhaps in her rush to present the "facts" she inadvertently forgot to list them; a mere oversight? Or maybe it's just a simple matter of bias on the part of Malkin? Yeah, that's it. It seems that when you possess the political and cultural myopia to the degree shown in Malkin and her political ilk you tend be overly subjective and disingenuous.
Looks like bonuses paid out of the bailout money are gonna get taxed at 90%! Oooooh, that's gonna make rush stomp his feet!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090318/pl_politico/20197
HGe is going to need a new strand of pain killers
Does it make you the least bit uncomfortable having the United States
Government discuss a law addressing a specific person for confiscation
of property? What's to prevent them from simply appending your name to
the law also? What happens to the poor insurance salesman at AIG who
happened to sell a lot of insurance in 2008? I suppose he is guilty by
association and will have his reward taken away also. That's a shame.
Especially since his salary is only $50,000/yr and he has 6 children and
a disabled mother in-law living with them.
Pssst! Hey, egb, the black helicopters are above your house RIGHT NOW! Better adjust your tinfoil hat and tune in Rush PDQ so he can tell you what to think.
The insurance side of AIG is not in trouble. The poorly-run investment side is. The straw "salesman with 6 kids making 50,000" isn't touched by this, even if he were more than .00001% of the employees of AIG (if "he" exists at all).
Does it make you the least bit uncomfortable having the United States
Government discuss a law addressing a specific person...
You mean like Bush v. Gore?
try again, dude! that is a lame rebuttal. how bout this? what happens if the government doesn't ever do anything about issues such as this and a priviliged few continue to prosper at the expense of an entire nations economy and we find out just before we starve to death that the neo-conservative leadership are greedy liars?
I wonder what the tax rate is on the $150K that Obama got from AIG? Not taxed?!? Oh my, thats going to make rushie stomp his feet too.
Slight difference, idiot.
The money given to Obama was given to the Obama campaign for the presidency and was not personal income, but a campaign contribution (which I believe is not taxable).
The money given to the idiots at AIG are contracted retention bonuses, which are eligible to be taxed because such bonuses are PERSONAL INCOME.
Does it hurt to be so intellectually challenged?
commonsenseliberal---Slight difference, idiot.
Is that really necassary? Didn't I say it wasn't taxed? Although I didn't question my own statement like you did. Are you really sure I'm the intellectually challenged one (I know what I say is fact, you don't)
Mob Anger is ONLY acceptable with "Drill Here! Drill Now!" or "NO GAY MARRIAGE!" or Bomb Iran! Ok for government to take away anything but rich people's undeserved money. Of course these guys defend it. They've been rewarded for screwing the american people for years.
How about "bomb Pakistan"? Which mob defends that effort?
Depends, are you talking about the mob that backed bush 100% when he mentioned bombing pakistan, or the mob that backed mccain 100% when he suggested bombing pakistan, or the mob that rose up in anger at a false strawman they created claiming Obama wanted to bomb pakistan? (hint - they are all the same mob!)
Ummm, Obama has already bombed Pakistan several times. It's no longer a false strawman to claim Obama "wanted" to bomb Pakistan. He has already fullfilled his desires to attack a sovereign nation that did not attack the US. Pretty much like the false strawman that Bush wanted to attack Iraq.
But, since this isn't even close to on topic, I'll leave this one alone from here on out. I only mentioned it because someone else brought oil drilling, gays and bombing soveriegn nations into the discussion on conservatives against mob rule.
Nice to find out Rush thinks the electorate is a mob.
Not just the electorate but the owners of AIG. We own 70% of AIG.
Actually, it's 79 percent and that still didn't get me 79 percent off a Season's Pass at Stowe this year, let alone a bonus.
Givin' these schmucks a bonus is like giving A-Rod a five million dollar bonus on top of his salary for not making the All Star Team and Manny Ramirez an extra ten million over and above for not winning the gold glove.
Well, if I own part of 79% of AIG, I want my money out of AIG to invest elsewhere.
Who do I see for a check for my part of AIG? I want to sell...
Obama has $150,000 of it (tax free). Go see him.
Rush, Beck, Hannity, and Malkin. Where's Coulter? That gang of five would surely bring the GOP to its knees. I guess 4 might be enough.
For the record though, I'm sad to say that I think that the bonus contracts should be honored, if they are still valid... I just don't happen to have people actually listening to me. ;)
After the except one penny of these bonuses they should be arrested for misapproperation of federal funds a fellony. The people who issue the bonuses are also comitting a fedral felony for misuse of federal funds.
How are people receiving the bonus's committing a felony. Aren't they simply getting what was agreed upon in their contract? I think Obama knew about these bonus's beforehand. Should he be held liable for that felony you want to charge someone with? Didn't he just say "the buck stops with me"? And, how about Geithner? He knew all about them also. He's the one who ok'd them.
So were the auto workers. The GOP thought they should give up what their contracts promised them to get bailout money for their employers. I don't remember you concern-trolling about that at the time.
That's right... you don't remember. I didn't think union members should be forced by the government to renegotiate their contract either. But, since union contracts aren't the topic, I'm not the one trolling.
Do you have any comment on the questions I did ask?
Auto workers were given the option. Agree to change the contract, or GM goes into bankrupcy proceedings and then the contract is nullified anyway. Same option is available to AIG, but Bernanke, Paulson and Geithner think AIG failing (going into bankrupcy) would be much worse for economy. The only way a contract can be nullified is through bankrupcy or having it declared illegal and unenforcible. For that you have to pick a law that it conflicts with. "Public good" isn't a law that I am aware of. Both GM and AIG should just fail to my way of thinking.
you're right, floyd. don't you wish those pesky have-nots would just live in isolated interment camps until their cheap labor is needed. better yet, if you ain't rich, lay down and die! if you can't get rich, it's yer own fault! in fact, if you don't make six figures, don't even think about voting! wouldn't that be great, floyd? how bout my co-workers who got laid off and are in their mid fifties, but the execs of our company still got millions in bonuses despite "the market"? it's their fault, isn't it? they should have flunked out of college and got their own stupid radio show, huh? american workers are lazy, huh? you're a disgrace, floyd!
Coulter's somewhere else, probably already on her knees.
Coulter's too busy defending herself from being eaten alive by Megan McCain.
For once there's a Republican (Megan McCain) who actually sees Coulter for who she is.
Ya do realize that Laura Ingram is going to whine that she's just been victimized once again by another "left wing smear machine double standard" because you just made a fat chick joke at Meaghan McCain's expense that she could never get away with making because "the left" is so unfair to spoiled, blond, blank, gop bigots, don't you?
I hope you're trying to be funny (and you probably are) - but you're reaching if you truly believe that I was making a 'fat chick joke' (two of those words I don't use in a derogatory manner because (1) I'm a tad bit chunky myself and (2) I believe the word 'chick' is demeaning. :)
No, no joke at anyone's expense. And screw Laura Ingraham. She's just as worthless as Coulter.
No, I don't think you were trying to make a fat-chick joke. That's not gonna stop Ingram from claiming that ya just did and whining because she supposedly can't.
That's the point. Ignorant gop-trash like Ingram and her audience never let the facts get in the way.
Agreed.
SO IT'S MOB RULE to complain that exectuves that with their greed and mismanagement have ran their company into the crapper, that have received outragious bonuses rewarding them for their failure. IT' MOB RULE to complain about this? Actually it's the RIGHT thing to do. If I failed at my job, I'd be throwen out the door. These jerks should be to along with LIMBAUGH and the rest of the RIGHT WING NOISE MACHINE.
You won't catch me defending Limbaugh for awhile. I can't believe this guy is defending AIG. I agree with a few things El Rushbo has to say, but this is just plain stupid. AIG are acting like scumbag, greedy, Enron-esqe b@stard$.
P.S. It's OBVIOUS that AIG has paid Rushbo to whip-up some positive talking points concerning their mischief. What really irks me is that they probably spent more of the money from the stimulus on just that! That means Rush just got yours and my tax dollars!
AIG, Fannie, Freddie, Merrill, Lehman, Enron, the list goes on. Trying
to fix these problems with laws and rules is a form of Whack a Mole.
Rush, Hannity, et al, don't believe there is anything wrong with the
free market. Leftists see all the problems and think that government
is the solution. We complain in this blog about what a corporation is
doing and we own 80% of it and most of what it is doing has happend
under Government Supervision or can be directly related to government supervision.
Until people learn that the free market must address the Enron problems
and CEO problems and Bonus problems without help of the government, the
free marketers are going to suffer in a democracy. The electorate is
going to vote in people who at least recognized there is a problem.
No one will like the political solutions but that's what happens when people get
fed up with corporate behavior. They go to the ballot box and vote for change.
Free market types say they are regulated to death, but admit no
weakness in the free market of today.
Big business begot big government. Big business could have avoided
generating a big government (T Roosevelt, Wilson and FDR created and
expanded regulatory government) by simply fixing problems progressives
complained of. They didn't. They don't.
Free market types should not be surprised that the electorate wants
to fix problems in the worst possible way. And we are seeing that now.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
That's for the good laugh this morning!
I cannot believe, after all of the crap we've been through regarding the economy, people like you are still screaming that an unregulated market is the way to go.
I believe it was Einstein who said that doing the same thing over and over again, trying for a different outcome, is the definition of insanity. You Republicans are totally insane.
Let's be clear: the U.S. is not a democracy. You folks on the right have no damned clue as to what that really means, do you? It means that 50% +1 does not a new law make. This is a representative republic. We elect people (GOVERNMENT) to handle these issues. The free market does not have to address these problems without the help of the government. You obviously don't see (or absolutely refuse to see) that government needs the economy - and the economy needs government. You cannot divide the two. It just won't work. We've seen your laissez-faire economics at work - and we're living in the results of corruption, greed, corporate socialism and literal theft - and people like you are saying, "Let's just keep our hands off and let the market work it out."
IT DOESN'T WORK!
You could very easily be the poster boy for Einstein's definition of insanity. Care to share a pic for a poster?
AMEN TO THAT.
You missed my point entirely. Perhaps I wasn't clear. My point was that
if free market types had solved these problems a year ago, government,
Rush, George, James, Nancy, Harry and MediaMatters wouldn't be having this
discussion. It is a failing of free market types that is not
recognized by the free market types. Anti free market types, think that
the only way to solve problems is government regulation. That is, if
there is a problem anywhere in the economy, invent a regulation. I
disagree with that point of view. There are, many times, better ways.
The result could make the problem disappear without any expense
to the public. That would make almost all people happy even
people that don't like capitialism. Only government growth types
would be disappointed.
For example, had the AIG exectutives and the government one year ago
recognized that bonuses might be problematic, had they solved the
problem a year ago, we wouldn't be so angry. The AIG folks did not do
that. Most free market types admit that some regulation from government
is needed -- even Rush has said that. However, when pressed for a
workable boundary, silence is the response. I suggest we end the silence
and start talking about the best ways to fix a market. The result won't
be a completely free market but it also wouldn't have the congress
chasing individuals for money paid to them in a contract.
When the CEO problem, the Enron problem, the bonus problem and the
poisened asset problem are ignored by government and free market types,
the electorate goes out and elects representatives that reflect their
anger. Since our country is divided between more regulation and less
regulation, in this case, the more regulation people win. No one
seeks any other solutions other than more or less regulation. That's
tunnel vision, to me.
Free market types should not be surprised when the electorate votes for
representatives that restrict the free market. They have ignored the
problems at their own peril and their peril is at hand.
Until free market types address the problems of big business and big
government in conflict, the tide will ebb and flow with respect to
more and less regulation.
commonsenseliberal---This is a representative republic. We elect people (GOVERNMENT) to handle these issues. The free market does not have to address these problems without the help of the government.
The US is a representative democracy. Slight difference from what you think you're talking about. But, good try. When you get to 10 grade governments class, you'll learn all about it. That should be in, oh... about 3 years for you?
The problem is we never really had an unregulated market. Socialist policies have been interjected into the economy and the government for decades now.
And obviosly government involvment does not work since all the companies that got money are still failing.
Gee, that's big of ya. In other words, you're only a part-time dimwitted dittohead. Good for you, little fella. Good for you.
Ya do realize that this anti-bailout, pro-bonus is just standard psychosis for the lard-butted loon, don't ya?
It's all ignorant trash by ignorant trash for ignorant trash, little fella. Just 'cause ya don't make all the stops don't stop ya from bein' just another brain-dead, bigoted-trash bozo on the flush bus.
Make a note of it.
Now what does "bigotted" have anything to do with this thread? Why would you bring that up? You are perhaps the dumbest person I have ever come across on this board. Suppose you went to public school, eh little fella?
Actually, Obama is standing up for AIG, also. Did anyone catch the fact that Obama received $150,000 from AIG during the campaign? Chris Dodd also received another $100,000. Pretty convieniant that AIG gives it's management bonus's, with Obama's full knowledge, then suddenly it's all the conservatives fault that AIG is prospering under Obama's administration. Sounds a lot like the Bush cronyism that was complained about while Bush was in control. Is it suddenly ok to give democrats hundreds of thousands of dollars for campaign support then receive bail-out cash? What would that be called if Bush had done this? What is it called while Obama DOES it?
capt. let me guess. The few exceptions are Olbie and Maddow, now that's funny. Talk about media bias.
You guessed wrong, now that's funny. Talk about troll bias.
You can troll or you can answer the questions. When did the tax evading treasury secratary Geithner know of the bonus's? How long did it take him to inform the president? How much money did AIG give Obama's presidential campaign? How much money is Obama giving AIG in return? It sounded like cronyism when Bush did it, it sounds the same when Obama does it. Perhaps you call it something else when Obama does it.
BTW, Obama's approval rating has slipped another 5% over his handling of the financial crisis. I guess nobody likes cronyism no matter who does it? His disapproval ratings climbed 9%, more than a quarter of the nation dissaproves of his actions. But, I'm sure you saw that Pew polling data but were too embarrassed to say anything.
BTW, the only poll that really counts is in November of the even-numbered years.
Are you saying you can't answer the questions, either?
I cannot believe you've even mentioned Obama's approval rating dropping by 5%. WHO CARES?
Obama's approval rating is still 3X Bush's last approval rating. So Obama's approval rating dropped 5%. When he's polling in the 20% approval rating range, then we'll talk. Otherwise, mentioning Obama's approval rating in this discussion (about right-wing whackjobs defending AIG) is a disingenuous attempt to discount Obama when there's really no reason to do so - and it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
As for what people knew and when - who cares? In the whole grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter who knew what and when (in this situation). The fact of the matter is that there are contracts guaranteeing bonus money to these creeps who killed our economy in order to make themselves richer. To me, that's traitorous. The folks at AIG who believe they deserve these bonuses were the very same people who had a hand in the tanking of our economy. These people held the well-being of the American people in their hands - and they BLEW IT, all in the pursuit of ill-gotten riches. These people had a responsibility to the general populace (IMHO) and they FAILED MISERABLY. They deserve nothing more than three squares a day in the nearest Federal Penitentiary. But I digress...
These contracts, I believe, can be fought in the courts. It doesn't matter how hypocritical the right-wingers are. They've always been hypocrites and, sorry to say, they will always be hypocrites. The thing that gets me is this: these idiots at AIG who are on the receiving end of these huge bonuses obviously have no morals, no ethics and no scruples. Anyone with an ounce of patriotism in them would see what they can do about (1) giving the money back, as the money is that of the tax payers - you know, the people who are struggleing; of (2) donate the money to a worthy cause that would possibly help put people back to work or give the people they helped to destroy a hand up.
It doesn't matter how much money AIG gave Obama. AIG gave money to several presidential candidates. There is no quid pro quo here, as you allude. There is also no evidence that Obama is giving AIG any money - and no one is asserting that Obama is giving AIG money - so you can cut that strawman right out of there.
It sounds to me as though you have too many questions to have an informed opinion of the matter...
They were against the bailout but are in favor of the bonuses. You would think that might confuse a number of loyal wingnuts. It appears the conservative agenda is anything contrary to Obama.
That's it exactly. If Obama was defending the bonuses they'd be outraged by that instead.
I can see the title on the screen: "Indiana Limbaugh and the Status Quo of the GOP". The final exciting scene: The hero, Indiana Limbaugh, running (well, actually rolling) down the hill, clutching the dusty bag of AIG gold, closely followed by a howling, screaming "mob" from the dirty and irrational "Taxpayer Tribe", hell bent on getting it back to its rightful place in the "Temple of Honesty". We can only hope our Indy succeeds in his holy quest to restore the "honor" and "integrity" of the race of rich, old, white males once again. Roll end credits with the soaring tune, "Money Makes the World Go 'Round", from "Cabaret".
The only think missing from your scenario is the ancient Templar knight, who shakes his head at Rush and says, softly, "You chose... poorly."
AIG bonuses are a red herring.
AIG should be left to sink or swim. I no longer trust Bernanke, Paulson (departed) or Geithener. Their "unique qualifications" may exist but for what they are qualified I have not been able to determine. It is that trio that convinced two Presidents and the United States congress to spend huge amounts of money and guaranteed nothing and oversaw nothing. The current president and congress still are following along. By their decisions, each person in the United States is now an additional $2,500 in dept. That's each man, woman and child -- all 300 million Americans. And that's happend in 8 months. At that rate by the end of 2012, each of us will be $15,000 more in dept than we were last summer.
I vote to fire Bernanke and Geithner, and withdraw all remaining assets from AIG and let sink or swim on its own.
And your economics degree is from where again?
By his writing, I think his degree in economics is from either (1) Romper Room or (2) Universitas Rectimus...the one with the smelly back door...
I will probably burn in hell for this, but I have to agree with pretty much what these idiots are saying. I was recently a part of a retention deal at my company. All a retention bonus is, is a contract between the employee and the company that if you stay until a certain date, we will pay you x amount of dollars. In this case we had to continue our services while transitioning all of our assets and train the new companies people. I managed the people that we offered retentions to, and I let some of them leave early and they still got their full bonus since they fulfilled their responsibilities. I think it is disingenous of congress to tax these guys for the bonus since the agreement was made prior to any bailout. As for could they have hired others; all I can say is these agreements were made prior to the Bear Stearns collapse and all the other collapses, so there probably was not unemployed wall streeters that could have done the job. Obviously AIG knew they were in trouble when they offered these retention bonuses and felt the people that created the mess were the best ones to fix it. That's a managment decision you can agree or disagree with it, but the decision got made and you have to live with it. As for the amount of the bonuses; that is always a hard number to determine and you are always better off to err on the high side and take your lumps later. what should gbe asked are now that these guys got their bonus, are they all leaving with more work still to be done and if so, who will complete their work, and why have two administrations now deem that we cannot allow AIG to fail? I have a feeling we still don't know how bad things truly are in the financial sector.
Us idiots have tried to explain it but the other morons wont listen...
Good post spelling it out terrapin...again.
whatever, dude. the members of NAMBLA can rationalize sexual abuse also. the main point hear is a few greedy people on wall street have milked an economy as far as they could and just before they shut the door, they want to take just a little more with them. the us is not a society made up solely of lawyers, daytraders, and politicians (sorry rush and sean). there are millions of hardworking americans that make under 40,000 a year who just want to keep their jobs. they don't want a government handout. the problem is the decisions made by wall street have a direct impact on those american's live's and if things screw up. "oh well". it is fundamentally wrong for anybody in any company to take a bonus when the company loses money and lays off workers. period. end of point.
Wow. Is everyone on this site a Nazi? You do understand what "retention bonuses" are and why they were paid, right? They were not "performance" bonuses.
This site is filled with Marxists and it scares the hell out of me where this country is headed under the (lack of) leadership by Fidel Hugo CarterBama, Pelosi and Dirty Harry.
You and your ilk are seriouisly disturbed, envious, dedicated foot soldiers of the New World Order, aren't you? I have an idea, there are plenty of pathetic models of the kind of society you want for America, and instead of destroying the greatest and most successful political experiement in history that has brought a tremendous standard of living, take your pathetic selves to the EU, Cuba, Venezuala, or anywhere but here and live out your life in your lame utopia.
It must be hard to breath being so tightly wrapped up in the American flag.
Murlz - go back to Freeperville and let the adults run things for a while.
Us and our ilk? We're not the ones who destroyed the economy...it was right-wing laissez-faire economists and greedy corporate socialists - you know, the people YOU admire.
Commonsenseliberal, you "adults" have been running things since 2007 and we are in the tank because of it and its is getting worse, much worse. Unfortunately, there is no end in sight either. You adults are attempting failed policies of the past in hopes this time the result will be different.
Yes, you and your ilk. Who destroyed the economy, CSL? Please, be specific. Be sure to cite evidence to support your assertions.
Right-wing laissez-faire economics and greedy corporate socialists you say? That is quite entertaining. You mean the greedy corporate hounds like the ones in El Presidente's cabinet, the ones cooking the books at Freddie/Fannie to make their bonuses, and corporate America who supports the DFL? Like for example the ones on Wall Street...
...just follow the money, CSL: Goldman Sachs in 2008: DFL $4,392,720 (75%) - GOP $1,439,720 (25%). AIG in 2008, DFL $586,426 (69%) - GOP 267,579 (31%). JPMorgan Chase in 2008: DFL $2,699,886 (61%) - GOP $1,723,380 (39%). Citigroup in 2008: DFL $2,652,839 (61%) - GOP $1,716,259 (39%). Morgan Stanley in 2008: DFL $2,106,874 (58%) - GOP 1,518,568 (42%).
http://www.opensecrets.org/
Interesting numbers, would you say?
The house of cards fell when Fannie/Freddie collapsed. That set everything in motion. You can thank Dodd, Frank, Waters, et al., and the rest of the DFL toadies for that happening. Pres. Bush and the GOP were warning about the risk of Fannie/Freddie for a very long time and the cash cow of the left was going to be protected at all costs.
I will grant the CDI's, MBS's, etc., were/are a huge problem. They never should have been able to leverage they way they were, and in the future will require regulation to ensure this doesn't happen again, but lets keep this in persepctive, the mortgages were guaranteed. Therefore, if there was a default, the government (taxpayer) would pick up the tab. Bad idea, again, at the insistence of DFL legislators.
I disagreed with the bailout(s) and still do. We have a system to manage these kinds of failures, it is called bankruptcy -- not governmental intervention. Government creates problems, it does not solve them. I do not agree with privatizing profits and socializing loss, which is exactly what Fannie/Freddie engaged in by their risky behavior because they were a GSE. I think that is a terrible way to conduct business. It is also a terrible precedent to set as now everyone feels entitled to a piece of the pie. Everyone from Wall Street to main street has their hand out looking for something from government. It is disgusting, as is anyone who supports the same. More importantly, it does not resemble laissez-faire economics.
And by the way, I have no problem with greed. Greed is what has driven this nation to reach its greatness whether in pharmaceuticals, medicine, technology, transportation, etc., from which you benefit daily.
I have no problem with greed
So sayeth Ebenezer Scrooge.
I see they've checked out the link you provided. It suddenly got awful quiet in here. They want the facts sooo badly, then when facts are presented they run and hide. Oh, and don't ask commonsenseliberal for evidence, he doesn't ever provide it. I don't think his parents let him use the internet that long. Although, he doesn't get outside very much, he says he's pretty chunky, so maybe he spends a lot of time on the internet. Porn, I would guess. He seems to have something for Coulter and Ingram.
And one more thing - just so you can say that you left Media Matters with a bit of an education.
Nazis were right-wingers. How are we, the posters on a left-wing website, Nazis?
You don't make any sense.
Way to ignore my last post, CSL. By the way, Nazi's were not neatly packed into a right-wing label as your proclaim. They had facets of both left and right.
For example, they asserted complete government control of finance and investment, which includes the allocation of credit, control over industry and agriculture -- all of which are hallmarks of what is currently taking place and a long standing desire of the left. The leader (Obama in this instant) is viewed as the embodiment of the movement and the nation as a whole, which include his policies. Another similarity to the left today is central planning. Yet anotehr would be they were very anticlerical, and it seems progressives are constantly attacking anything Christian. In addition, much of their (the Nazi's) rhetoric was anti-big business. Sound familar? They also were thought to be the working man's party. Finally, Nazi's wanted to change the status quo, which is by definition liberal and clearly in opposition to conservatism, or the right.
It is true that much of their dogma was right-wing, and while they were the opposition party, they were supported by some heavy hitters on the conservative side of the aisle, but to ignore the obvious is one of two things, disingenous or intellectually dishonest. The choice is yours.
You will note that I also used Marxists simply because one word doesn't describe all of what I see here. Here is an intersting read, if you are so interested: http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html The same applies to the socialist comment about the New World Order.
It seems there is a panoply of individuals here all of whom are diametrically opposed to what the framers had in mind for this country.
And you think they should be retained because...?
I think who should be retained?
Do you have any clue what a retention bonus is? (If that is what you are referring to when you say retained)
If they're for it it's "populist outcry." If they're against it it's "mob rule."
Wow... This is my first visit to this website, and I have been lurking...reading your posts. Shocking.
All I can say is you people need to focus on being patriotic by doing right by your family, your neighbors, and your country.
I am deeply concerned by the tone portrayed here, the media, and places of leadership in our government. There surely is enough blame to go around. The hypocrisy on both sides is astounding! Are you going to continue as you are, slinging tired euphimisms at each other, or are you going to TRY to see facts as they are and get down to actually doing something productive with your obvious talents? (And I don't mean glib, snarkey rhetoric.)
We are a nation of LAWS, not emotion. Read the constitution- read the federalist papers- anything you can get your hands on that might open your eyes to what our founding fathers meant when they begat this wonderful republic!
When you see my name, I'll bet there will be some of you who will say "Geez, she had kids??!!" Well, yes, I did. Four wonderful, loving, productive members of society, who pay taxes and vote their conscience. I was married to their father for 39 years until he passed away 2 and a half years ago. I have lost at least 30% of my retirement in this mess, and I'm sure the carnage is not over yet. I'm hoping for the best, but trying to prepare for the worst.
I hope you all know how to do the same. Sorry to be preachy! I mean it in good will.
Sincerely,
9KIDSGRAMMA
Nice post, truly.
Yea, it's called socialism when it's billions going to help the needy, but it's fine when it's billions given to a bunch lame duck CEOs.
I am only going to say this one time ever....
Limbaugh is right. And this is how the Democrats should have gone. You do not 1) legislate through emotion and 2) Cap private enterprise pay structures with public law.
I will never again side with Rush, but he is right.
I couldn't agree more with 1 and 2.
This whol fiasco seems to say that the government wants AIG to break contractual obligations it made and get sued and go out of buisness anyway.
AIG was given the TARP to stay in buisness. They have to hold to the contractual obligations to their customers as well as their employees to do that. If you had a contractually obligated/promised bonus coming to you, you would want it at all cost. Because that was money you earned.
The focuse should not be on punishing a relatively small number of people who legally recieved money from their company. Or even punishing AIG for using the TARp for exactly what they said they were going to use it for. The focus should be for AIG to have to restructure the bonus program for furture bonus' based on their current financial situation.
what's even more disturbing besides the number of morons in the us that blindly follow the likes of limbaugh and company, is the fact that a large number of them claim to be devout christians! jesus preached a message of self-denial not self-indulgence. IMHO, neo-cons like limbaugh and hannity are nazi's. just replace the word jew with liberal or democrat in any of hitlers rhetoric, and you have an example of the neo-con mindset. the sheer numbers of middle class and even lower middle class tunes into and bob their heads in agreement to their fat leader as if giving him phallacio turns my stomach. no suprise. there are people who still believe the world is flat and the holocaust never happened.